JUDGMENT 1. - As per undisputed facts the petitioner was enrolled in Army as Sepoy on March 29, 1980. At the time of enrolment the petitioner was medically examined and no disease was detected. The petitioner was discharged from service w.e.f. April 12, 1991 on medical grounds due to following disease:- (a) Neurosis; (b) Lumber Canal Stenosis; (c) Bilateral Sensori Neural Hearing loss. Although the medical Board recommended 20% disability b each head, the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) Allahabad granted disability pension only for the third disability and no pension was granted for the first and second disability as such the disability pension was assessed only 20%. Claim of the petitioner for two other disabilities was declined vide s communication dated August 12, 1999 on the ground that other disabilities are not aggravated and attributable to military service. The petitioner in the instant writ petition claims disability pension by assessing the disability as 60%. 2. The respondents in the reply to the writ petition and reiterated that to o her two disabilities are neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 3. I have heard the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. 4. Rule 173 of Army Pension Regulations 1961 provides as under:- "Regulation 173 of Regulation, 1961 - Unless otherwise specifically provided, disability pension may be granted to an individual, who is invalided from service on account of disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is assessed at 20% or over. The question whether disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the Rules in Appendix-II." "Appendix-II has made classification of disease i.e. (a) disease affected by climatic condition, (b) disease affected by stress and strain, (c) disease affected by dietary compulsion, (d) disease affected by training, marching etc. It is pertinent to mention here that the disability pension under Regulation 173 and the Pension Regulations for Army of 1961 are in fact beneficial provisions of law and wider interpretation should be given to these provisions, otherwise it would cause serious injustice to the Sepoy and Ex-serviceman, who are governed by the Regulations, 1961." 5. It is an admitted position that when the petitioner was enrolled in service he was physically fit. It is an admitted position that when the petitioner was enrolled in service he was physically fit. There is nothing on record which could suggest 3t the disease suffered by the petitioner could not be detected at the time of his enrolment. Therefore, the disabilities suffered by the petitioner are attributable or aggravated during military service. Even the Medical Board recommended 60% disability to Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) but the respondents did not accept the recommendation of the Medical Board and reduced the disability as 20% only. The act of respondents in reducing the disability Is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 6. For these reasons, I allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to grant the petitioner disability pension in view of the recommendation of Medical Board as 60% disability, In accordance with rules. The respondents shall ensure compliance of this order within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order to costs.Writ Petition Allowed as above. *******